From Ethical Illusions to Political Reality: Criticising Normative Approaches in International Security Studies

Abstract

The paper deals with the critical analysis of R. Floyd’s “theory of just securitization”, which attempts to incorporate universal moral and ethical norms into security practices. Via the comparative analysis of global political cases, the author demonstrates the main contradictions of this normative theory: (1) the impossibility of objectively verifying existential threats, (2) the neglect of proportionality and damage minimization criteria under the pressure of bureaucratic and political interests, (3) the instrumentalization of humanitarian rhetoric for strategic purposes, and (4) the narrowness of the value base grounded in the Western liberal model. These contradictions reveal that without established mechanisms of supranational enforcement, ethical criteria remain primarily a rhetorical resource. Thus, normative approaches in security studies prove to be only marginally useful for analysing and explaining state’s actions in the research works on security issues. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge the importance of the normative discourse as a tool that encourages rethinking the boundaries of what is acceptable in the realm of security, and can encourage securitizing actors to develop more balanced decisions.